Mike Preston

The bar is pretty low. Notice in the SPD should be good enough. In a pinch that is.

Not that it matters, but your ratios are backwards as far as what the accountant wants. Or at least backwards in the wrong direction!

Check the document. I will bet you that it has a provision that basically says if a participant who otherwise has the right to individually direct their funds declines to do so then those funds can be invested essentially as a pooled fund. Bet you bet you.

There are no specific rules I'm aware of. Your way makes sense as long as each and combined is not bumping up against 415 or 401(a)(17). If so, it gets to be more complicated.

Larry, has the issue of C-corp and S-corp owners "share" of contributions not being eligible for forgiveness been resolved?

Did both entities adopt the plan? If so, yes, you combine the two amounts, paying careful attention to ensure the earned income is calculated properly, just as you would if the only source was the sole proprietorship. There are no regulations on how to divide the deductions. The accountant is technically responsible for the breakdown although as a practical matter it usually falls to the actuary to, at a minimum, suggest how it might be done. The only guidance I am aware of is informal guidance from the IRS at conferences to "do something reasonable".

9/11/2019

Would somebody please explain this to Luke? I don't have time.

How is 410 (b)?

There is way too much to unpack. Maybe somebody else can start the process. This week I'm jammed. If this is still hanging out there next week I'll be glad to start the process.

It was an either / or situation. You have identified the fact that you were the first situation so the second situation doesn't need to be discussed.

I think anybody who suggests a client do something other than the safe harbor method is, as a simple country actuary friend of mine is fond of saying, looking for a knuckle sandwich from the government, the client, the participant or another advisor.

If the service is legit, it can be used. If you meant safe-harbor in the sense of crediting up to 5 past years of service for benefit formula purposes, that is fine. If you meant you are limiting past service to five years so you don't lose reliance of the use of a safe harbor formula then I'd double check the design against a more modern construct.

What 10% limit are you referring to? Why would any portion of a QNEC be included in an ACP test, whether that QNEC is used to offset the Safe Harbor Match or not?

You might get a more robust response if you make it a bit easier for somebody to help. I know that I just blow by most posts that make me do research just to figure out the question. Maybe somebody else will chime in if you were to give a hint what "pp" stands for.

These things are time-sensitive. Waiting more than 2 months to follow-up probably opens you up to share the malpractice I'm sorry to say. You need the help of an ERISA attorney at this point. Good luck.

I would be willing to help find dancing partners. Please send me a private message.

If nothing else scuttles the idea, section 1c2 will create a problem. Doesn't - 5 create a problem also?

Yes.

It is even easier. Just ignore the plan termination. Continue to aggregate. Be happy.

Very close to a triple negative.

Read Larry's message again. Slowly. Carefully. Then see what the document says. Slowly. Carefully.

I have no problem returning the money to the plan sponsor because it most likely was supposed to be paid from the client to the sponsor. However if it makes you feel better return the money to The entity that paid it in the first place. Accountants deal with this sort of crap everyday. Sorry, stuff.

Because the deposit wasnt from the plan sponsor. How can u not?

Why is this a difficult problem to solve? Give the net funds/stocks back to sponsor and call it a day.